Andrew Yang's plan of a UBI is a unique idea, but a great one. Many studies have confirmed this [1], and a version of it even exists already in Alaska [2]!

It's no question that with new advancements in technology, thousands, if not millions of jobs will be displaced, and people will suffer finding new ones. They will be working pay check to pay check, and have less and less money over time.

What happens when people don't have enough money?

They will gradually reduce their expenses, such as food, clothes, or other bills. This can lead to a dry economy, where no money is being exchanged. This can lead to even more jobs being closed down.

However, that's where the UBI comes in.

With more money in the people's hands, that money can now be circulated through the economy, and in a way renew it. This is known as a trickle up economy [3].

How does it impact the society?

Like said earlier, people now have more to spend. They can get off debt, and support their lives better. Andrew Yang has actually tested this out by personally giving his own money to selected people, and seeing what the results were.

He found out that many people were much happier due to them having more financial freedom.

There's also a misconception that a UBI would create a poor atmosphere around the people, having more and more drugs and alcohol being bought. However, numerous studies have denied this explanation, and said instead that people would spend it on important things like healthcare or their child's education [4].

Conclusion

In this round, I have talked about how a UBI is both beneficial to the economy, as well as the society.

In the next round, I will be talking about Andrew Yang's other unique ideas (TBD), and clashing with my opponent.

Politically effectiveAs I think it should be clear, Yang is not a politician. Biden is. With having Trump we realize after blunder after blunder that politicians like Obama are the way to go. Obama passed the ACA whereas Trump can’t even deliver on a main talking point of building the wall. Biden has been a politician since 1966 but Yang hasn’t even done anything in the political sphere. For Biden to be more effective than Yang he would’ve need only pass 1 policy since Yang has passed no policies. I’ll go out on a limb to say he has.

Has a higher chance of winningIf we look at Iowa polls, Biden is doing better. If we look at national polls, Biden is doing better. If we look at head to head states we see Yang isn’t even worth mentioning for how little support he has.

Doesn’t rely on one policy and recent debate Let's be real the only reason why Yang is even mentioned on anything is because of his UBI. Biden has a really lengthy track record and was working with Obama who was a really popular candidate.

If we look at the most recent debate Yang, supports UBI not a shocker. Wants white supremacy to be labelled as domestic terrorism, I am going to say some words to Putin.

If we look at the most debate Biden supports an improved ACA, will not override his attorney general when it comes to the justice department, make sure alliance with South Korea and America is kept, punish Saudi Arabia, decriminalize marijuana.

What Biden offered helps more people than what Yang which I will soon make clear later.

Looking at the link they claim $1,000 allows you to live above the poverty but looking at the poverty line, that the link linked, you would need $140 more to be level with it. Not to mention, if it wasn't clear already, this is only for one person while also realizing this cover is only for people over 18 if we go by Yang's proposal. By clicking "What is Freedom Dividend" we see it states "to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18". I don't understand the percentages given here so I am going with the lowest number.

Looking at the link we realize everyone receive 1,000 per year. Meaning it is different to Yang's proposal. Yang starts at 18 and gives $1,000 a month not $1,000 in a year. Meaning it would be unfair to compare two different UBI's. What I can compare is if with this money alone can bring people be out of poverty. If we look at the poverty guidelines for Alaska we realize it is $15,180 for just one person. Meaning just one person would need $14,180 to be in line with the poverty line.

I can safely say the people most impacted cannot simply change their welfare programs for something that wouldn't even get them over the poverty line. If Yang would be elected he wouldn't be helping the people that need the help the most. He would be giving people who are already comfortable $12,000. Given it is not enough to keep you away from poverty. It is yet another novelty not a necessity.

Conclusion

Healthcare is more important than $12,000 a year so even the one policy Yang relies on, Biden just beats him on top all the other reasons I laid. Not enough characters to talk about all of them here. :(

Round 2

Published:
11.27.19 07:17AM

Hello and thanks for responding. Let's follow through...

Clash

My opponent said...

Yang is not a politician. Biden is. [..] Yang hasn’t even done anything in the political sphere

Biden hasn't done anything in the economic sphere.

The fact that Yang isn't a businessman is actually a good thing. He has a different mindset and an area of knowledge, one that politicians don't have. Having experience in the working and business field, grants him an extra sense of knowledge. He can see the real threats of the economy, and how to fix them. Politicians lack this skill however.

Trump can’t even deliver on a main talking point of building the wall

Trump gives a bad reputation to businessmen. Comparing Yang with Trump is like comparing Catholic Saint Mother Teresa to Kim Jong Un. Well, maybe not that, but you get the idea.

Has a higher chance of winning

But we're not talking about who's gonna win.

[Yang relies] on one policy [..] Yang is even mentioned on anything is because of his UBI

First, that means his UBI policy is really good.

And second, that's not true. Yang has three big policies, UBI, healthcare, and human centered capitalism. In addition to those, he has many more policies in his bucket list [1].

It's not Yang's fault that he didn't get enough speaking time, so judging him based solely on that debate is an unfair use of juxtaposition.

Biden supports an improved ACA

And that is better than Yang's plan of Medicare for All in what ways? More evidence in needed.

Looking at the link they claim $1,000 allows you to live above the poverty but looking at the poverty line, that the link linked, you would need $140 more to be level with it

A site doesn't necessarily reflect all of my exact beliefs. If I got a piece of information from a site, I'll link it, regardless if the other information on that site works against me. Also, I would say attacking a link from a link that I linked is a little off-track...

Looking at the link we realize everyone [receives] 1,000 per year. Meaning it is different to Yang's proposal.

Yes.

Unfair to compare two different UBI's

I wasn't comparing them. I said that "a version of it" could be found in Alaska. That implies that the basic concept of a UBI could indeed work.

He would be giving people who are already comfortable $12,000

Could you please explain this? Yang would be giving everyone over 18 $1000/mo, regardless. There wouldn't be any discrimination, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting at here.

Cares about Humans

Yang has done countless interviews with actually people that he cared about. To prove it? He even remembered some of their names, and talked about them in recent debates.

This statement is further supported when you hear Yang talking and concerning about his family, like a normal person would. He isn't just worried about the society as a whole, he's worried about the individuals of those society.

Going back to his family, one of his children has autism, and like he said, is expensive [4]. And since one of Yang's children is autistic, he can better understand this problem, and create new and more diverse solutions towards it.

Is UBI a good idea. If you look through this entire debate I heard him say it is a great idea and a really good one. Not once has it stated why it is the case. I assumed Alaska was the prime example used to say it is good but this statement differs

I wasn't comparing them. I said that "a version of it" could be found in Alaska. That implies that the basic concept of a UBI could indeed work.

If he wasn't comparing them what was point? My view of this would be he brought up a point that is meaningless.

This is not even mentioning you not even explaining in what way UBI works? Does it help bring poor people out of poverty? Hasn't been demonstrated or are you saying it works because it gives people more money? Work requires you to tell me in what way.

Rebutting points

Biden hasn't done anything in the economic sphere.

As the president of the United States you do not need to be well versed in the economy. If Joe really cared that he was bad with the economy, he can hire an economics adviser. It just so happens that this is no new practice because the current president has had multiple economic advisers.

He can see the real threats of the economy, and how to fix them. Politicians lack this skill however.

Under the assumption, Biden won't hire economics advisers and listen and act on what they say. This hasn't been demonstrated.

But we're not talking about who's gonna win.

As a person who likes democracy, I think we should respect the will of the people. Given my opponent didn't deny Biden has a higher chance of winning means he doesn't disagree with Biden should be elected because he has a higher chance of winning as seen by the polls.

I am sorry that he doesn't have a perfect record. It is completely unfair bar to set, if what I think you are implying, that politicians need to perfect. If not why give me 10 bad things when he has been a politician since 1966?

It's not Yang's fault that he didn't get enough speaking time,

Yang's lack or political presence is his fault. By him not starting off small and eventually being popular enough to be a popular candidate for the race is up to him. Why didn't he wait 4 years to gain some political presence instead decide to start his political career as a candidate for the presidency? This is bad because you need the democrats in order to pass legislation but who has vouched for him in the DNC?

And that is better than Yang's plan of Medicare for All in what ways?

Better? Obamacare has happened once so it is more likely to happen again. The ACA has proven to insure people but we have no evidence that medicare for all will work by ensuring.

More evidence in needed.

Your only point UBI had a link to a variation of a UBI and to something about the idea of UBI not Yang's UBI. No evidence that his proposal will help people. This is hypocritical coming from you when I have already gave arguments that ACA is good in round 1.

A site doesn't necessarily reflect all of my exact beliefs.

Please look at my link and find what disagrees with me. This is a complete failure on your part to find links that support you.

I would say attacking a link from a link that I linked is a little off-track...

I am sorry that I am the only one who bothered to check sources.

Cares about humans?

Remembering 2 people's names is the bare minimum reach the plural that is humans. Is this a point? No space

Round 3

Published:
11.29.19 07:02AM

Hello Nihilist and welcome to the final round. I have to say I did quite enjoy this debate. I wish you had the same. Let's begin...

Clash

My opponent said...

If he wasn't comparing them what was point? My view of this would be he brought up a point that is meaningless.

The Alaskan divided is not the same as Andrew Yang's UBI. However, it is based on the same concept, so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.

As the president of the United States you do not need to be well versed in the economy. If Joe really cared that he was bad with the economy, he can hire an economics adviser.

Yet you have not provided any advice to why a president should be educated in the field of economics. Oh, and key word, 'advisors'. The president's advisors do not have the same amount of information or reach as the president does.

Also, what stops Yang from hiring a political advisor?

Given my opponent didn't deny Biden has a higher chance of winning means he doesn't disagree with Biden should be elected because he has a higher chance of winning as seen by the polls.

But that's not what the debate is about... We're talking about who's the best candidate, not the one most likely to win.

It is completely unfair bar to set, if what I think you are implying, that politicians need to perfect.

I'm not setting any bar. My point is, give me 10 things Yang has done that is equally as bad or worse than Biden did.

Why didn't he wait 4 years to gain some political presence instead decide to start his political career as a candidate for the presidency?

Again, you are going off track. Talking about unrelated personal decisions that do not affect a person is completely off-topic. Remember, we are talking about who is the better candidate, not the one making the right voter decisions or whatever.

Obamacare has happened once so it is more likely to happen again.

Again, off-topic. That's a people problem, not a candidate problem.

No evidence that his proposal will help people

What about this one? I linked that 15,000 character in depth report on UBI in the first round.

[Links are] a complete failure on your part

If I use a piece of information on a site, I will link it. That's how I use links. Otherwise, some people might call out my 'false unlinked' information. I had past experiences with this.

Remembering 2 people's names is the bare minimum [to] reach the plural that is humans

Humour, I like it.

Not only two, dozens of people Yang has socialized with before. And by the way, find me an example of a politician that actually goes to small communities or individuals, and sits down and actually has a real talk with them, the way Yang does.

A Respeech of UBI

As my opponent pointed out,

not once has [Squid] stated why it is the case

Well, here we go!

Studies have found that 25% of jobs in America are at risk to being lost due to automation.

No job means little to no money.

And when people don't have enough money, they will limit their spending on clothing, food, and more. This causes little to no money being circulated through the economy.

However, a UBI can solve this problem by giving people money. This money will be circulated through the economy and reopen it. Yay!

A UBI "work"s doesn't mean Yang's UBI works. You still haven't told me how it works.

Yet you have not provided any advice to why a president should be educated in the field of economics.

What? I don't know why I would be making a point for you.

Also, what stops Yang from hiring a political advisor?

The entire idea of a president is to be political. If they are not then any decision must be made by someone politically versed and at that point why was he elected in the first place?

not the one most likely to win.

Biden should be elected because he is winning so far. This is a fair argument that you have yet to refute.

My point is, give me 10 things Yang has done that is equally as bad or worse than Biden did.

I do not have the space nor would stoop to your level of gish galloping you a link and expecting you to reply with such a limited character limit.

What about this one? I linked that 15,000 character in depth report on UBI in the first round.

You expect me to critique a 15k character report with 3.5k characters? This is unfair and I already pointed out he does not solve poverty by itself.

If I use a piece of information on a site, I will link it.

Doubling down on not agreeing with the link he gave.

Not only two, dozens of people Yang has socialized with before. And by the way, find me an example of a politician that actually goes to small communities or individuals, and sits down and actually has a real talk with them, the way Yang does.

My original point still stands. Why does this matter? It doesn't because you are going to represent the majority not the few "dozen" that you had a sit down with. I wonder why Yang is not doing so well in polls. One reason could be he is not effectively sharing his message.

Points that still stand

Politically effective like I mentioned one more policy is more than what Yang has ever done.

Polls are right and Biden is willing. I support democracy therefore Biden should be elected.

UBI isn't his claim to fame nor is talking to a few dozen people, it is him being a politician since 1966.

UBI

Yang's proposal does not bring people out of poverty it gives people who already are above poverty more money. It is not helping people on welfare it is helping people who don't necessarily need money as in to survive, essentially a novelty.

If it wasn't clear the very first link is a new source added in right this round. Meaning not only does my opponent expect me to read the entire thing to understand what it is talking about and actually fulfill the burden of proof that Yang's proposal will create 4.7 million jobs. No quote was made so he basically said here is a link go read it and quote what I am talking about. The second link is giving me anecdotes.

If it wasn't clear my opponent has not demonstrated Yang's UBI will reduce poverty instead resorts to using variations of UBI's in order to bolster his point about a very different UBI. It is like me saying constitutions work without understanding there are variations in it.

If it doesn't warrant violence. I don't agree with your analogy as it being realistic but hypothetically sure. This doesn't mean you can just bring in real world examples because I seriously don't want to have this conversation.

Thank you for confirming that your grievance with the vote is not one of quality, but simply that it does not favor your arguments. You're supposed to challenge votes based on the former; to harass voters based on the later would create an unfair atmosphere tantamount to other forms of vote rigging.

Plus your claims are at the point of being indiscernible from a temper tantrum. Key example, the contradictory "Your a liar for what you said or you didn't even bother do read the debate." [sic]

No one directly dies if there isn't "universal healthcare." We have universal healthcare in the sense if you go to the hospital you can't get turned away. I will repeat what I said.

"Nobody's goal is to kill people. There are different sides that are trying to find better solutions to the healthcare issue. It would be like me saying that I can use violence against you because you support a gun ban, which kills more people than if they are legal. Of course we can have a debate over whether guns save more lives or not, but simply because you believe one solution would result in indirectly killing more people is not a valid reason to physically assault an opposing viewpoint."

When the vote is on my side, it is on Squid to decide whether or not it is worthy to report it. I personally think you do not know what you are talking but given you know how the RFD works given how many debates you have voted on I will still not get what I want out of this.

You even call me out for making arguments that were not in the debate. Your a liar for what you said or you didn't even bother do read the debate. Whichever it maybe it really doesn't matter.

At this point you're making extra arguments by repeated assertion in the comment section, to try to win after the fact.

Do you think voters don't see how you behave in the comment section? You just informed them that if they vote on this debate, you'll complain if they do not individually list every little footnote the either sides main points (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would launch the exact same type of complaints were the vote in your favor).

Evidence was not given that Yang's UBI would work. He didn't even explain what way the UBI would work and I asked him and he refused to answer. He didn't even acknowledge I even talked about it.

I asked for clarification about your vote then I asked where did DynamicSquid sufficiently argued for UBI. This isn't contradictory.

Important details you missed out:

I made a policy argument in Round 1 which DynamicSquid didn't even bother to critique. He said there was no evidence when I specifically gave a link that stated ACA enrolled 73.8 million people in which Biden supports a better version of it.

Didn't define work so forgive me if I don't know specifically which way the UBI works in order to argue against it.

My "pre-fiat Kritik" was perfectly valid. Being on a winning side is a reason in supporting a side.

You've already complained my RTD was too complex for you with the level of detail it has, and now you're also complaining that I did not copy/paste every single line of the debate and incorporate all the evidence from the sources for you? That's not the job of judges. We summarize and weigh important details which stand out to us. That a system seems to work at around $100, countered by the claim that at $1000 it would suddenly not be enough and would in no way help those with the least, is intuitively senseless to me. Plus you based your claims against UBI on "no evidence" when multiple lines of evidence were provided (as pro reminded us), and you then proceeded to complain that the evidence you claim doesn't exist was "unfair."

1,000 a year is vastly different from 1,000 a month yet you don't mention that anywhere. Even if DyanmicSquid directed the debate to UBI working it doesn't mean my point that him using the Alaskan UBI as an argument is any less valid given the difference in what we are talking about.

See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1682/comment_links/23328

Gist:
We have one policy from Yang, and a complaint that it by itself would not raise someone over the poverty level so would in no way help; at a casual glance at the evidence, it seems like it would help those people the most (even while it would not raise them out of poverty... poverty isn’t all or nothing). Con should not have allowed this debate to focus so much on Yang, instead of bringing in some of Biden’s proposals (such as what is his plan to alleviate poverty?).
Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that.